George Bush Leaker in Chief?

Now that the left is once again salivating over a three year old story about President Bush “leaking” classified information through ‘Scooter’ Libby to a reporter and trying unsuccessfully to link that to the release of Valerie Plame’s name, it’s high time to call the left on their blatant lack of knowledge of the laws and powers of any President in office and their latest attempt at slurring a sitting President during a time of war.

 

In an Associated Press article titled “Leak-Hating President As Leaker-In-Chief?,” reporter Tom Raum asserts, “After long denouncing leaks of all kinds, Bush is confronted with a statement — unchallenged by his aides — that he authorized a leak of classified material to undermine an Iraq war critic.”

 

On the surface this appears to be a very damning statement. But, is it?

 

First, let’s define what a ‘leak’ really is. From the American Heritage Dictionary, we find a leak to be,To disclose without authorization or official sanction.” Further, it says, “An unauthorized or a deliberate disclosure of confidential information.”

 

For the disclosure to qualify as a ‘leak,’ it must have been ‘unauthorized.’ Nearly every legal expert, regardless of their being left or right, have agreed the sitting President does indeed have the authority to declassify material they deem necessary to disclose to the public. That, and the fact that a President is also titled the Commander in Chief, tells me whatever material was disclosed was done so with full Presidential authority, removing it from the realm of a “leak.”

 

Classified material is not “leaked,” if it becomes “declassified” and as shown, the President does have the authority to declassify. Apparently, the author of the mentioned article above realizes this as he also says in his article, “As president, Bush has wide latitude to declassify material. And there was nothing in the legal papers filed by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to suggest Bush or Cheney did anything illegal.”

 

If he readily admits that neither Bush nor Cheney did anything “illegal,” why the headline of Bush being the “Leaker in Chief?” Considering that the leftstream media has been against Bush since he was first sworn into office, what else could it be other than one more attempt to embarrass the President and cause him discomfort and distract him while he directing a war?

 

Notice too in the above referenced article, Mr. Raum asserts, “that he [Bush] authorized a leak of classified material to undermine an Iraq war critic.”

 

This is nothing more than a feeble attempt at linking the release of the name of the former CIA operative, Valerie Plame, on Bush himself. It doesn’t matter than even Mr. Raum admits that there was nothing illegal nor is their any evidence that Bush’s disclosure had anything to do with the disclosure of Valerie Plame’s name, planting the seed that Bush did wrong is enough for the leftstream media.

 

So, we must ask, why was this material declassified and disclosed? Scott McClellan, White House spokesman explained it as, "The National Intelligence Estimate was declassified because it was in the public interest to provide portions of that National Intelligence Estimate to the American people… There were people that were out there making irresponsible accusations that intelligence was manipulated or that intelligence was misused. There has been no evidence to back that up whatsoever. And if you look at the National Intelligence Estimate…it shows the collective judgment of the intelligence community."

 

This disclosure had nothing to do with “embarrassing a critic,” but to calm fears that Bush was not acting in the best interest of the nation by going to war in Iraq. One must wonder why this subject is even considered newsworthy since it was known and reported on 3 years ago.

 

On July 18, 2003, CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux Reported: “The White House declassified a small portion of the National Intelligence Estimate, eight of the 90 pages. It is a report from the six intelligence agencies that was used to shape President Bush’s State of the Union address. It was also used to bolster his case for the war and the claim that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium from Africa.” (CNN’s “Live From,” 7/18/03)

 

The White House … Released Newly Declassified Intelligence And Dispatched A Senior Administration Official To Explain How Erroneous Material Ended Up In The State Of The Union Address.” (Joseph Curl, “White House Buttresses Iraq Claim,” The Washington Times, 7/19/03)

 

The Intelligence Declassified [July 18th, 2003] – Portions Of The October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate [NIE], A U.S. Intelligence Summary Based On The Work Of Six Agencies – Asserts ‘Compelling Evidence’ That Iraqi Dictator Saddam Hussein Was ‘Intent On Acquiring’ Nuclear-Weapons Material.” (Joseph Curl, “White House Buttresses Iraq Claim,” The Washington Times, 7/19/03)

 

This is nothing more than one more attempt to destroy a Presidency that the left and their minions in the leftstream media have not liked since he narrowly won out over their buy, Al Gore, in the 2000 election. Prominent Democrats can bellyache all they wish and cry about things all they wish and call Bush any name they wish. All they are doing is showing, as we on the right realized long ago, that Democrats have no ideas to better the country and instead, must build a picture of doom and gloom to regain power.

 

Do you really want a bunch of grown up crybabies having the power to mismanage the country again?

 

Lew

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: